This review article discusses the clinical significance of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), provides recommendations for monitoring protocols, and considers the interpretation of results in microvascular decompression (MVD) for hemifacial spasm (HFS). The lateral spread response (LSR) is an important monitoring parameter during MVD. It helps to identify the responsible blood vessel and confirms its thorough decompression from the facial nerve. The disappearance of the LSR during surgery is associated with favorable clinical outcomes. Standard and revised monitoring protocols and the confirmation of LSR persistence and disappearance are also discussed. The blink reflex and other facial nerve monitoring modalities, such as free-running electromyography, facial motor evoked potentials, F-waves, and the Z-L response, are further considered.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of microvascular decompression (MVD) in patients with hemifacial spasm (HFS) who have no definite radiological neurovascular compression (NVC). Sixteen HFS patients without radiological NVC on preoperative MRI underwent MVD surgery. The symptoms were left-sided in fourteen (87.5%) and right-sided in two patients (12.5%). Intraoperatively, the most common vessel compressing the facial nerve was the AICA (8, 44.4%), followed by arterioles (5, 27.8%), veins (4, 22.2%), and the PICA (1, 5.6%). The most common compression site was the cisternal portion (13, 76.5%) of the facial nerve, followed by the REZ (4, 23.5%). One patient (6.3%) was found to have multiple NVC sites. Arachnoid type (7, 50%) was the most common compressive pattern, followed by perforator type (4, 28.6%), sandwich type (2, 14.3%), and loop type (1, 7.1%). A pure venous compression was seen in two patients, while a combined venous-arterial “sandwich” compression was detected in two patients. Symptom improvement was observed in all of the patients. Only one patient experienced recurrence after improvement. Based on our experience, MVD surgery can be effective for primary HFS patients with no definite radiological NVC. MVD can be considered if the patient shows typical HFS features, although NVC is not evident on MRI.